[
Replying to POI in post #30]
Another "textwall" answer, and also a lot of repeat responses from you to boot. You know what this means... I'm going to address it in sections, so onlookers can digest. Also, so onlookers do not shy away from reading these otherwise very long responses -- in which virtually no one would bother reading otherwise....
Yes, it is a lot of "rinse and repeat" and I will be glad to continue to "rinse and repeat" because when you continue on, and on to make the same points I have already debunked I am forced to simply continue to debunk the points. Next, on the one hand you continue to complain about my long post, but on the other complain if I do not respond to all you say. Well, I left nothing out this time and you are complaining. Oh well, let's get at it again.
Debate for all sorts of god(s) have been raging for a long time. This means nothing. All that matters are the facts, which you lack severely. You see RealJack, I actually have facts. You instead have wishful thinking and faith. The rotting dead remain both rotting and dead. I've responded to your useless argument countless times now. Here we go, yet again... As long as belief in Christianity has such a stronghold, it will remain relevant. This is why we are not here arguing for some ancient Greek god, even though we know we cannot rule them out with 100% certainty either. And yet, we both know it would be absurd to believe some god is throwing down lightning bolts or something. If belief in that god were still relevant in society, you better believe there would be rigorous debates about why Zeus really is truly the purveyor of lightening.
And you want to know why we have so much "rinse and repeat"? It is because you continue to make the same old arguments which have already been debunked. Moreover, and again, it is arguments which did not originate with you but rather arguments you have heard from others which sounds good to your ears, which you have not thought through.
First, I am glad to see that you now recognize your cognitive dissonance which means you seem to at this point to be back to the argument that the resurrection is a unfalsifiable claim, which means you cannot then go on to insist that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty. However, my guess will be that somewhere along the line you will revert back to the argument that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty which would then eliminate your argument that it is an unfalsifiable claim, and you want to know why there is so much "rinse and repeat"?
Next, we have already been through the fact that it is useless to compare the resurrection to the religious claims of the world. One of the reasons this is a useless endeavor is because even if we were to determine every religious claim in the world to be false, this would have no bearing whatsoever on the claims of the resurrection. How in the world can you not see just how useless this is? It is like you are complaining that since we do not accept all the claims in the world, this somehow demonstrates that the resurrection claims have to be on the same level.
Moving on, I know of no religious claims in the world in which we have enough facts and evidence to determine that the story could not have been made up. Since you are the one who brings up the ride to heaven on a winged horse, we have no facts and evidence at all in which we can know this was not a made-up story. However, as far as the resurrection goes, we can know with certainty that the earlier followers could not have possibly made the story up, and you have absolutely no explanation for how this is the case. All you know is there are other claims in the world, and we should just lump them all into the same category, when the fact of the matter is, the claims are not on the same plane. In other words, I know of no religious claims which is backed up by historical evidence in which there are certain things we can be certain about, other than the resurrection.
I mean, it is incredible. The religious claims you want to compare the resurrection to have a main character, and it is this main character who somehow tells us what God wants us to know and then goes on to explain to us the rules we need to live by. As far as Christianity is concerned, the main character leaves us nothing in writing at all, but even so we have enough facts and evidence to know this main character ended up being crucified by the Romans. You would think this would be the end to the story but not only is this not the end of the story because we all know the main character who never leaves us anything in writing somehow becomes the most recognized name in the history of the world. Of course, it would be nice to think that the folks who were making the claims simply were involved in some sort of hoax, and this would be the reason for all the fuss, but it does not take very long at all to see just how extraordinary such a feat would be. However, as we continue to investigate, we not only come to realize just how extraordinary this feat would be, because we have enough facts and evidence to know this would have been impossible, and when we come to know this to be impossible, it is impossible on the same level as the resurrection.
We have all of these facts, evidence, and information concerning the resurrection, and we have none of that concerning these religions you are fond to compare Christianity to, and you are somehow under the impression that it is as simple as comparing Christianity to these religions, and when we actually make the comparison, we discover there is no comparison at all. We have been through all of this before, and yet you continue to bring up the same old arguments which have been demonstrated to not matter in the least, and then you complain about "rinse and repeat".
The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no way one can attempt to make the argument that the resurrection is a simple matter. In other words, no matter how you slice it, and no matter what conclusion you come to, you are going to be left with a most extraordinary tale, and you seem to be satisfied with any explanation at all, as long as it is not as extraordinary as a resurrection. In fact, we know this to be the case, because you can actually fix your fingers to type out, "I will happily rule out your claim". We all know you would "happily rule out the claim" but this is simply based upon what you would "happily rule out". It is certainly not based upon the facts we have. Rather, it is based upon what you would rather believe, just like when you were a Christian for decades of your life. The mind may have changed, but the thinking remains to be the same.
This is exactly why we have so much "rinse and repeat. Comparing the claims of the resurrection to these other claims did not originate with you. In fact, this would be one of the first thing anyone would think of is to think of how we have these other claims, and the fact that we know that they all cannot be true. This is why the argument is elementary, and it is hard to imagine anyone would even make such an elementary argument, and yet you continue to attempt to make this comparison over, and over again, when I have eliminated this argument. The claims of the resurrection stand or fall on its own merit, or the lack thereof, and these other claims have nothing whatsoever to do with it. The point is since the comparison has been dealt with long, long ago, there is no need in you continuing to bring the comparisons into the conversation, or you need to demonstrate how they would be relevant.
Now we have to deal with what you bring up as far as why Christianity remains to be relevant. The thing is, I will agree that Christianity remains to be relevant because of the strong hold it has enjoyed over the years, but how in the world do you imagine this has a thing in the world as to whether the claims would be true or false? I mean, Christianity could disappear completely from the minds of folks, and this would not have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection claims. However, it would remain to be relevant just how extraordinary the tale would be in order to come to the conclusion that we have enough facts and evidence to know that Jesus lived, had a following, was crucified, dead, and we can know with certainty that these earliest followers were not making the claims of the resurrection up. We can also know that this Jesus did not leave us a thing in the world in writing himself, and it is because of these earliest followers who were making these claims that this Jesus, who again left nothing in writing, becomes the most well-known name in the history of all the world.
The above is a most extraordinary tale no matter what conclusion you come to, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the strong hold Christianity has enjoyed over the years. So then, there is no need in you bringing up again the strong hold Christianity has enjoyed and why Christianity continues to be relevant, because I am not making the argument as to why Christianity is relevant. The point is, these earliest followers of Jesus spend most of their entire adult life continuing to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus, and this same Jesus becomes the most well-known figure in history.
With the above being said, there is no need in you bringing this into the conversation ever again, because it has been eliminated, and in this way, we will not have to "rinse and repeat".
Now we are going to have to move on to where you say,
There exist varying degrees of both the term(s) impossible and extraordinary.
It is most incredible that someone could actually type the above out. Sure, if we place the resurrection up against the idea that these folks made the story up, it would be easier to believe the story was made up. However, once we have determined beyond any doubt that it would have been impossible for the story to have been made up, there are no varying degrees. Both have been deemed to be impossible on the same level, and once they have been deemed to be impossible, it does not matter which would be easier to believe. It is like you are acknowledging the fact that it would be impossible for the story to have been made up, but even though we know that it would be an impossibility for the story of the resurrection to have been made up, we know that it is possible for folks to make stuff up. How in the world is this helping your argument?
Okay, so this is another argument which has been eliminated. It is impossible that the story of the resurrection was made up, and it is impossible for a resurrection to occur. There are no varying degrees in this equation.
I guess this is why faith is paramount.
